Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Valheru 11-09-04, 01:05 AM	This is a spawn of an off topic set of posts from this thread. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=325295&page=3) What are various peoples definitions of house rules. When does it go from being a simple interpretation of the rules to a full blown seperate rule set that you view as a house rule? And how often do you as a group use them? PS Sorry for going off topic over there, something I normally avoid. ;)
debatedeus 11-09-04, 02:46 AM	So you are taking the fluff, then expanding the crunch based on said fluff. In a lot of books, they give fluff to describe something, then give the rules for how that works. Fluff (wounds of war never heal) Crunch (Natural Healing and Spell and spell like abilities with the Healing subschool don't work.) Read my arguement. In this section there is no actual *crunch* text. There is cruncy sounding text, but that text is imprecise. Because it is imprecise, I am interpreting it to fall under text that was written poorly and should be repaired. Several examples of these kinds of errors exist all over the the WotC books, ranging from simple ones that refer to spells, domains, etc. that don't exist, to more complex ones like the Primary Source Rule. The mechanics are supposed give interpretation to the fluff, not the fluff giving interpretation to the mechanics. That's why in most cases you see the mechanics follow the fluff. This isn't always the case, but that is where errata comes from. But the errata does not cover everything, as the people writing it are flawed. I can name a number of errors (that is, errors Keith agreed were errors) in the Eberron Campaign Setting that were not covered in the most recent Errata. Every month I expect the Sage of Dungeon Magazine to publish more rules clarifications. No matter what, if you are on the cutting edge, errata doesn't cover everything. Also, the mechanics are all a means to interpret the fluff, they are a servant to the fluff. People may disagree with me on this point, but the entire point of the mechanics are to simulate combat under a certain set of assumptions, like sword-play and magic use. These assumptions constrain how the world is depicted. If the assumptions behind the rules are not formulated to be true to the idea, or at least a reasonable facimile thereof, then what exactly are we simulating? The rules are not inherently good. Your choosing to take the fluff of the mournlands, and choosing to expand it beyond what the RAW give as the mechanical way that it works, is a house rule. Not a different interpretation. See the above. The actual text is both poorly written, and does not simulate the correct situation as presented in image from the other pieces of text. Now you want to talk about interpretation, look at the Star Wars game's rules for the healing force effects. Reading them through once, it makes it sound like you can only benefit from healing once every hour. But when you carefully consider ever word, the exact word choice and order, well then, you end up with the conclusion that it's not that limited and you can only get healing once per hour per person using the power. Completely different interpretations. They fix that in revised, don't they? People reading the first printing of 3rd ed. and saying that when you enter a threatened area you are "Moving in a threatened area" therefore provoke attacks of oppertunity. While another person saying that moving into a threatened area is not the same as moving while in a threatened area. That's rules interpretation. When the FAQ clarified and said that it was only moving Within a threatened area, then sticking with the interpretation that moving into provokes an AoO becomes a house rule not an interpretation. Agreed. No official ruling either will has, or probably will be introduced in this way. Note that you are not furthering the arguement about how I argue in any way here, but establishing a criterion about judging house rules against interpretations. Also note that I agree with this criterion subject to the other points raised in my bullet-pointed post. In this instance, if you came in and said, I read that it didn't allow any healing at all. Some one else says, it does allow healing, you just have to be tricky. That's a difference in interpretation. But once you state, I'm taking this part of the text, and using it as a reason to alter this part. Then you've just moved past making an interpretation, to making a house rule. I disagree. We are firmly in a war of interpretations at this point. Which part is more valid? The poorly written crunchy sounding part or the descriptive fluffy sounding part? At this point it is a matter of preference; no one can tell me my preference is wrong, by and by the rules. There is a contradiciton in the text, and the rules give no way to resolve it. Fluffy sounding parts and crunchy sounding parts have equal merit unless there is some source, some information that weighs one more than the other. In the case of the DMG or the MM, there are stat blocks, or specifically written paragraphs that are the primary source. The only information you can refer to is in the politics section of the information on the Mournlands! If it appeared in a paragraph marked "Special Game Rule Information" then I would put more emphasis on the poorly written crunchy sounding things. Taking one thing such as extradimensional space, then applying a second thing that was written completely seperate from it, such as co-terminous planes, is more tricky to determine when it falls into the realm of house rules or not. On one hand, the newer rule doesn't address the old rule, so until an official source does make the connection, your rule is interpretation, and not a house rule. But if an official source made it clear that extradimensional spaces isn't the same as a coterminous plane, and you stick with your original interpretation, then it just made the switch from interpretation to house rule. First, the rules of DnD are not clear about interplanar things. They never were, and they probably never will be until 4th edition or 4.5. Second, I agree that until WotC publishes something contradicting my interpretation, that it is an interpretation and not a house rule. I really wish elecgreystone would read all of the posts that he praises. As for saying whether your "interpretation" of extradimensional space and coterminous planes, counts as a house rule or not, I can't say till I've had time to read up on both sources. At the moment, from my understanding, it looks like a house rule, but I"m willing to admit I don't have the Rules memorized, and would have to look into them further before I would label them as such. I have read all of the materials numerous times, thanks to the boards, and this is the interpretation I feel most comfortable with. I'm literate, and I hope that it is obvious that I am capable of reading texts to get what they are trying to point out. Do you have another standard to judge by which an interpretation is valid other than your own take on it? What if that take it flawed or biased? I'm glad you're willing to admit that you don't know, I think that is better than giving a wholesale account against me without trying to understand me. And for the record, when I play D&D, unless I'm creating an unique subset of rules for a specific world, I don't use house rules, and I rarely find inconsistancies that need an "interpretive framework." So your first assumption is wrong. This doesn't mean we never have a disagreement on a rule, but it does mean that those disagreements are usually from some one not reading the rules all the way through, or simply misremembering things. Oh, they come up. Check the boards, they are all over the place. Most of the time the framework through which you judge is invisible, but you have one in place. As a DM you've never had to adjudicate situations when the rules were not quite clear about what to do? I find that really hard to believe because I feel like I have to do that at least once a session, but then I have obnoxiously creative players (if any of you are reading this, j/k!). There are rules times when even reading the rule all the way through doesn't give you a clear understanding of what *should* be going on, as is the case with the shapechanging bonuses listed for the disguise skill. The fact is, sometimes the rules go either way. It is rare, but non-existant. By your own admission above, my first assumption is not wrong, because you agreed that different interpretations are possible on some rules. And on the point that if you don't clearly state the rule as a house rule, people will misinterpret it and think its RAW, is a major pet peeve of mine in my games. One player consistantly quotes another friend of ours one rules, and says that they are officail, they looked it up in so and so's game. When I go to check on it. I find that my thoughts are stated, no where in the books, faq, errata were these rulings stated, leaving no place for them to be "looked up." Just becuase when they do change things, they have a way of stating it matter of factly, much like you do, he takes it as fact. And it continually cuases interuptions in my games. And that I don't like. Therefore, when you very from a rule, use fluff to further expand a rule, or otherwise make a connection that is not normally there, you need to state that you are doing so. Whether or not you view it as a mere "interpretation" or a full blown "house rule", it needs to be stated or it creates confussion. If I do state what is a house rule matter of factly, I always have a reason. Usually it is because it is clear to me, a competent English speaker, that what I am saying indicates my opinion on the subject. Soemtimes that opinion gives my interpretation of the rules, other times it gives what I think the rules should be, given the error-prone state of writers. Some self-errating I do is house-ruling, but some of it results directly from the unclear presentation of the rules as written. Clearly you possess the power to distinguish between what is opinion and what is written in rules; if you see my point then you probably agree with my interpretation, if you don't then you probably do not. In either case, you are free to do whatever you please in *your* game. If I was lucky enough to play in your game then I would go by *your* interpretation. Perhaps I should put that disclaimer that someone else has on the boards that says that all of my posts should be taken with IMHO.
Valheru 11-09-04, 11:42 AM	Read my arguement. In this section there is no actual *crunch* text. There is cruncy sounding text, but that text is imprecise. Because it is imprecise, I am interpreting it to fall under text that was written poorly and should be repaired. Several examples of these kinds of errors exist all over the the WotC books, ranging from simple ones that refer to spells, domains, etc. that don't exist, to more complex ones like the Primary Source Rule. But the errata does not cover everything, as the people writing it are flawed. I can name a number of errors (that is, errors Keith agreed were errors) in the Eberron Campaign Setting that were not covered in the most recent Errata. Every month I expect the Sage of Dungeon Magazine to publish more rules clarifications. No matter what, if you are on the cutting edge, errata doesn't cover everything. The first part, while I don't understand why it's in the Politics section :confused: I don't see it being impresise at all. "No natural healing and no spells or spell-like abilities of the healing subschool" Is a pretty hard and clear mechanic. How is that impresice? Becuase it doesn't mesh with the Fluff as you personally see it? So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you see the rules in this section as impressise and unclear, becuase how you would have developed the rules for the fluff "The wounds of war never heal" is different then how the authors developed the rule to handle it? And what did you want the Errata to handle? Changing the way Spell-Like abilities work so people don't think Syberis of Making is broken? Sometimes, I honestly think they change things that shouldn't be changed, and when they do change things, they just go to the other extreme. PS I agree that the rules for Extradimensional Spaces have never been clear. I remember one point an "official" answer was they connected to the astral plane. But then what happens when you take it to the Astral plane? I also don't care for the idea that Rope Trick can completely circumvent the danger of the Mournlands.
Valheru 11-09-04, 11:54 AM	The poorly written crunchy sounding part or the descriptive fluffy sounding part? At this point it is a matter of preference; no one can tell me my preference is wrong, by and by the rules. There is a contradiciton in the text, and the rules give no way to resolve it. Fluffy sounding parts and crunchy sounding parts have equal merit unless there is some source, some information that weighs one more than the other. As a DM you've never had to adjudicate situations when the rules were not quite clear about what to do? I find that really hard to believe because I feel like I have to do that at least once a session, but then I have obnoxiously creative players (if any of you are reading this, j/k!). There is a way to resolve it. Again, I disagree that there is a contradiction at all. They took out the most common way to heal, natural healing and heal spells. Without those, there is no way to fully recover from injury without hiding in a hole, under a rock, and hoping no one comes by until enough time goes by for the Paladin to Lay on Hands to heal everyone. Plus, the fluffy part of the text can be interpreted in other ways then the way that you are doing so. The Crunch is quite clear, and has definate clear limits and guidelines. No, there have been times where I have to look up a rule becuase I don't remember it clearly, but never a time where I haven't found a clear set of rules to guide the action. And I have plenty of creative players.
debatedeus 11-09-04, 12:43 PM	The first part, while I don't understand why it's in the Politics section :confused: I don't see it being impresise at all. "No natural healing and no spells or spell-like abilities of the healing subschool" Is a pretty hard and clear mechanic. How is that impresice? Becuase it doesn't mesh with the Fluff as you personally see it? The reason I see it as imprecise is that it doesn't handle other natural alternatives to spells of the healing subschool, nor does it handle other spells that use use positive energy to heal, nor does it do anything with alchemical substances that speed natural healing (such as those that appear in Tome and Blood), or special abilities that approximate natural healing at an accelerated rate (ie: Fast Healing and Regeneration). All of these are not mentioned explicitly, but are covered implicitly in how the crunchy sounding text is written. Because they are implicitly covered, however, some people think that they are not officially covered. When you have to derive a rule, the preceeding rule is open to interpretation. How do we interpret that rule? My method is to use the surrounding flavor text. And what did you want the Errata to handle? Changing the way Spell-Like abilities work so people don't think Syberis of Making is broken? Sometimes, I honestly think they change things that shouldn't be changed, and when they do change things, they just go to the other extreme. The Siberys Mark of Making lets you make things without the XP cost. PCs could just synthesize huge amounts of precious metals and sell them to become wealthy. To me, at least, that seems a little silly, as written. I suspect that the design staff forgot that spell-like abilities do not have XP, or Material Component Costs. So in my game, I have house-ruled it otherwise. I do my best to try and understand why the change has been made, and if I do not understand it then I house rule it otherwise. In some cases I do not like the changes. For example, I have house-ruled that prestige classes count against your character for purposes of determining multiclass penalties.
debatedeus 11-09-04, 12:53 PM	There is a way to resolve it. Again, I disagree that there is a contradiction at all. They took out the most common way to heal, natural healing and heal spells. Without those, there is no way to fully recover from injury without hiding in a hole, under a rock, and hoping no one comes by until enough time goes by for the Paladin to Lay on Hands to heal everyone. Plus, the fluffy part of the text can be interpreted in other ways then the way that you are doing so. That's the point though, the whole thing is open to interpretation and no one can be entirely right. I'm fine with other people reading the fluffy part in different ways, and I in no way suggest that my interpretation is the only one around. I'm just trying to put mine forward in a persuasive way. The Crunch is quite clear, and has definate clear limits and guidelines. I disagree, and that's the beauty of my arguement before. I don't want to prove you wrong, only prove my right to disagree with you and still be following the core rules. When I DM for the RPGA, I have to use exactly your kind of interpretive framework, this is because the official interpretive framework that they use to understand the rules is that they do not carry implications. However, they are not the official rules people, and sometimes that results in downright silly rulings. It also doesn't make them right about how the rules should be. This arguement is a lot like the strict constructionist versus loose constructionist arguement for how the government should interpret the constitution. I'm a loose rules constructionist on my own, and a strict constructionist only when I am forced to be.
nevcoup 11-09-04, 03:32 PM	:heehee Why not :pint: instead?
Valheru 11-09-04, 07:48 PM	The reason I see it as imprecise is that it doesn't handle other natural alternatives to spells of the healing subschool, nor does it handle other spells that use use positive energy to heal, nor does it do anything with alchemical substances that speed natural healing (such as those that appear in Tome and Blood), or special abilities that approximate natural healing at an accelerated rate (ie: Fast Healing and Regeneration). All of these are not mentioned explicitly, but are covered implicitly in how the crunchy sounding text is written. Because they are implicitly covered, however, some people think that they are not officially covered. When you have to derive a rule, the preceeding rule is open to interpretation. How do we interpret that rule? My method is to use the surrounding flavor text. It does handle them, by specifically mentioning what doesn't work, by default everything that is not mentioned does work. They mentioned this in one of their rules of the game articles. Anything that is affected is mentioned, anything that is not affected is not mentioned. So if they don't mention it, it's becuase it's not affected. The list of what isn't effected could be endless. If they wanted it to be all encompassing, they would have said, healing in any form does not work while in the mournlands. Specifically on your examples of what's imprecise. If they speed natural healing, they don't work becuase natural healing doesn't work. As Keith said, monsters in the mournlands are supposed to be able to heal. Since only monsters naturally have fast healing and regeneration, then only monster will be able to use those abilities. Players won't be able to get regeneration since the spell is of the healing subschool. Therefore the spell, and magical items that require the spell won't work. Only creatures with it as a Supernatural (ie not spell or spell like) ability will be able to make use of it. You are right, none of these are mentioned explicitely, however, neither are they implied. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=implicit) You don't have to derive any rules, becuase WotC has stated that you should never try to derive a meaning other then what is explicitly written. My point about the fluff being able to be interpreted in different ways was to say that becuase it can be interpreted differently, is why you shouldn't base an arguement on the nature of the rules over the fluff. Becuase Fluff is open to interpretation, the authors give thier interpretation of it in the mechanics. If you use your own personal interpretation of the fluff in order to expand, limit, or in any other way change the mechanics as given, then that's your house rule. Which you are free to do, I respect your right to feel the need to change whatever you want to change. But when you do so, admit that you are making a change. Especially when an official source chimes in and says that what the text says is the only thing that is affected by the condition of the mournlands. There are times when you can disagree over the rules and still be following the Core Rules. But this is not one of those instances.
debatedeus 11-15-04, 01:02 PM	It does handle them, by specifically mentioning what doesn't work, by default everything that is not mentioned does work. Given your standpoint, you're right. But I do not hold your standpoint--as it stands, I am a loose constructionist regarding DnD rules, where you are more of a strict constructrionist. As a loose constructionist, I'm willing to consider the spirit of the rule to get issues implied in that rule, especially when a strict interpretation does not make sense. There is no explicit catch all for all healing types that use positive energy. There is no explicit catch all about natural healing that extends it over fast healing and regeneration; however, in the text surrounding both there are implied links. I am not wrong in the RAW because I am a loose constructionist; WotC has never produced a rule mandating how the rules are to be interpreted. In fact, their primary source errata rule strongly supports a loose construction of the rules. The question here is "why were they not mentioned." I am stuck on the fact that they could have said that no healing of any sort would work in the mournlands, but did not. I believe that they intended for some kinds of healing to work, like using necromatic energies via any of the vampiric abilities (although in my game I house-rule otherwise). I also believe that the spirit of the rules as written indicate that the Mournlands are a place where no positive energy or natural healing occur. They mentioned this in one of their rules of the game articles. Anything that is affected is mentioned, anything that is not affected is not mentioned. So if they don't mention it, it's becuase it's not affected. The list of what isn't effected could be endless. If they wanted it to be all encompassing, they would have said, healing in any form does not work while in the mournlands. There was no rules of the game article on the Mournlands. Also notice that very often in the Rule of the Game articles that Skip Williams needs to create and reinterpret rules to make sense of them. Flying is a chief example of this; the rules, as written, are flawed and need interpreting to work. Specifically on your examples of what's imprecise. If they speed natural healing, they don't work becuase natural healing doesn't work. That is not in the RAW. The requires a logical step. That logical step is what I take. Note that this contradicts what you said above, since regeneration and fast healing are both not included in the statement about the Mournlands. As Keith said, monsters in the mournlands are supposed to be able to heal. Since only monsters naturally have fast healing and regeneration, then only monster will be able to use those abilities. Players won't be able to get regeneration since the spell is of the healing subschool. Therefore the spell, and magical items that require the spell won't work. Only creatures with it as a Supernatural (ie not spell or spell like) ability will be able to make use of it. You are right, none of these are mentioned explicitely, however, neither are they implied. What about Players who play monsters? And given what you said above, they are implied as they are definitely true, and are not explicit. That's why Keith had to say something in the first place. You don't have to derive any rules, becuase WotC has stated that you should never try to derive a meaning other then what is explicitly written. See the above. Keith is just a freelancer working for WotC, and he's handing out reinterpretations on the rules. The entire d20 system functions on this kind of construction. My point about the fluff being able to be interpreted in different ways was to say that becuase it can be interpreted differently, is why you shouldn't base an arguement on the nature of the rules over the fluff. Everything is subject to reinterpretation. That fact does not mean that an arguement cannot be made from that direction, only that one needs to be clear that they are arguing from that direction! The rules are no more solid than the fluff. My position has always been that one needs to take a complete view of the text to make a judgement. Read Kripke on the subject; language use is subject to an assumption of rules that need not hold, and the second you start questioning those rules the entire basis of language reduces down to a scary skeptical hypothesis. Becuase Fluff is open to interpretation, the authors give thier interpretation of it in the mechanics. If you use your own personal interpretation of the fluff in order to expand, limit, or in any other way change the mechanics as given, then that's your house rule. Which you are free to do, I respect your right to feel the need to change whatever you want to change. What happens when that intepretation is flawed, incomplete, or non-sensical as written? So what if you call it my house-rule! If the RAW is incorrect as written, it is not the final say for anyone's game! It is not the tie that binds players to DnD, it is the framework that they use to play. I write from the perspective that there is something beyond the rules as written. Its the classic contrast of the letter of law against the spirit of the law; and I am firmly against abuses of the letter of the law to triumph over the spirit of the law. But when you do so, admit that you are making a change. Especially when an official source chimes in and says that what the text says is the only thing that is affected by the condition of the mournlands. There are times when you can disagree over the rules and still be following the Core Rules. But this is not one of those instances. You operate off of the assumption that the text of the rules are the final say about what they mean. Text needs interpreters, and the act of interpretation yields the real rules, the refined RAW. That refined RAW is more subject to nuiance and is less easily seen because it it more complicated. This is where I try to argue from. You are not one to tell me on evidance so scant that this is not an instance to use the faculties of reason to try and more deeply understand something.
Docrailgun 11-15-04, 03:02 PM	Keith Baker has mentioned time and again that he does not own most of the non-core books, and those books were not taken into account when the rules of the Eberron book were created. Thus, we see the problem with using "Tome and Blood" or any other non-core book when trying to interpet core books (though technically Eberron is not a core book... but it will eventually be the primary D&D setting). As for the Siberys mark, Keith has also told us that the Mark of Maing does indeed have an XP cost, just as the spell. The reason I see it as imprecise is that it doesn't handle other natural alternatives to spells of the healing subschool, nor does it handle other spells that use use positive energy to heal, nor does it do anything with alchemical substances that speed natural healing (such as those that appear in Tome and Blood), or special abilities that approximate natural healing at an accelerated rate (ie: Fast Healing and Regeneration). All of these are not mentioned explicitly, but are covered implicitly in how the crunchy sounding text is written. Because they are implicitly covered, however, some people think that they are not officially covered. When you have to derive a rule, the preceeding rule is open to interpretation. How do we interpret that rule? My method is to use the surrounding flavor text. The Siberys Mark of Making lets you make things without the XP cost. PCs could just synthesize huge amounts of precious metals and sell them to become wealthy. To me, at least, that seems a little silly, as written. I suspect that the design staff forgot that spell-like abilities do not have XP, or Material Component Costs. So in my game, I have house-ruled it otherwise. I do my best to try and understand why the change has been made, and if I do not understand it then I house rule it otherwise. In some cases I do not like the changes. For example, I have house-ruled that prestige classes count against your character for purposes of determining multiclass penalties.
Docrailgun 11-15-04, 03:06 PM	Unfortunately, this is the sort of thread which scares people away from D&D or roleplaying in general: newcomers expect that all gamers are pedantic rules-lawyers bickering about something that does not help people enjoy the game.
debatedeus 11-15-04, 05:22 PM	Keith Baker has mentioned time and again that he does not own most of the non-core books, and those books were not taken into account when the rules of the Eberron book were created. Thus, we see the problem with using "Tome and Blood" or any other non-core book when trying to interpet core books (though technically Eberron is not a core book... but it will eventually be the primary D&D setting). As for the Siberys mark, Keith has also told us that the Mark of Maing does indeed have an XP cost, just as the spell. I respect Keith more than anyone in the RPG industry right now. I appreciate his help in facilitating discussion about Eberron, and his skill as a DM. That said, the core books explicitly state that spell like abilities do not have XP costs. While I know that Keith gave us the Errata, that Errata is unofficial, and until he said it on the boards, non-existant. I use this arguement to justify personal interpretation; as it turns out, this bit of interpretation I note was right on the money. Allowing someone to use the Siberys Mark of Making without XP cost is so stupidly rediculous that it should not be in the rules as such, and a deeper understanding of the purpose of the rules demands that it is changed. The actual change may be a house-rule, but the obvious need for the change is fundamental to an active understanding of the rules. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thread which scares people away from D&D or roleplaying in general: newcomers expect that all gamers are pedantic rules-lawyers bickering about something that does not help people enjoy the game. If someone made it to these boards, then it is highly likely that they have a specific interest in DnD, and a thread discussing the nature of rules interpretation-frameworks will not scare them away. They might not understand it, but it will not scare them away. In my opinion, DnD is no longer in the phase of its existence where it has something to prove to society; people play it because it is fun to them for whatever reason. Considering the frameworks is one fun part for me. I also like DMing. And running Dragons.
Brastan 11-15-04, 05:45 PM	Sigh... This had better be addressed in the Five Nations book. What has the RPGA said on this issue? Perhaps it's time to find other Fluff vs Crunch areas to work on. If not perhaps we should agree to disagree, shake hands, get a :pint: and part company on this topic. :ghosted: